will your body store fat after a 600 calorie meal no matter what its macro ratios?

Your body stores and uses glycogen and fat through the day. It doesn't matter what your energy balance is at any particular moment, what matters is your overall balance through the days and weeks. I burn 2600 calories in an average day. I can eat 2100 calories in a single meal every day for a week and lose weight or I can break it up however I want and lose weight.

Macronutrients for the average person without medical issues won't really impact fat storage (not that you can eat 100% of 600 calories in pure fat or pure carbs or pure protein). We suggest an appropriate balance of macros in an entire day for energy (carbs), muscle retention (protein) and metabolism/hormones (fat).

If you managed to eat 600 calories of pure carbs, fat or protein the only way you are going to gain weight from that is if your other meals put you over your daily energy needs. 600 calories of any one macro might be temporarily stored as fat, but not long term in a calorie deficit.

The macros of that 600 calorie meal do not matter. What matters is the average calories per day for the week. Try looking at things more long term. What is your real concern?

hamlet1222 wrote: »

Thanks everyone, I was just wondering if I was missing something from the argument for eating low-carb, wondering if fat you eat sits in your stomach for longer or something.

You should look into the low carb eating groups on here for some of the reasons why they suggest doing it. One of the main things I hear is that they deal with less hunger when they eat higher fat. Low carb is not necessary for fat loss, a calorie deficit is. The macro break down you use for that should be based first on individual preference. If I do low carb I get crabby and I tend to binge eat.

hamlet1222 wrote: »

Thanks everyone, I was just wondering if I was missing something from the argument for eating low-carb, wondering if fat you eat sits in your stomach for longer or something.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2015/08/21/whats-better-for-weight-loss-cutting-carbs-or-fat

Meantime, a recent review of 59 studies on the low-carb, low-fat debate published in The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that while both diets led to significant weight loss, the low-carb diet led to moderately more pounds shed. Still, the researchers concluded that the effect was small enough that dieters are best off following the strategy that best fits their lifestyle.

After all, to some people, cutting carbs is painless and easy to do over the long term. To others, the thought of forgoing regular pasta nights is almost too much to bear, Hall says. To others, low-fat is synonymous with low-flavor. Maybe they can reduce their fat intake for a couple of weeks or months, but to lose the weight and keep it off, the change has to endure.

“Low-carb diets vs. low-fat diets fuel a constant debate in the nutrition community,” Bede says. “Each has their own pros and cons, but when it comes to effectiveness, one stands out over the other: whichever diet you can personally sustain.”

I just eat within my calorie restriction most of the time, I eat my carbs in the morning and after a workout as they are utilised well at this time with no consequences. I got used to not eating eg. rice with my dinners and desserts unless I'm dining out on a special occasion, I will have cake late. The next morning I will workout extra because of this. I heard our bodies work calories on a monthly basis, so as long as it all adds up within your calorie range, should be ok. Moderation and good timing I guess.